Hullo Matt,
Your post has struck a real chord with me.
Matt: "Ive been reading a lot of Rorty lately and Ive finally come to a
realization: Pirsig was doing to me what Plato did to Pirsig. For Pirsig,
Plato created the Western philosophical nightmare called Professional
Philosophy, amongst other things. But through Rortys eyes Im finding that
Pirsig is attempting the same thing,
rather than really fundamentally changing anything. To turn Pirsigs eloquent
phrase back on him, the halo is gone from Pirsigs head. This is not to say
that Im still not an avid Pirsig supporter. But Im finding that the better
parts of Pirsig are to be found in ZMM, not Lila"
I agree.
[But I haven't read Rorty - yet another task! Have you read Felipe
Fernandez-Armesto's 'Truth'? He critiques Rorty on pp 220-221 where he says
that Rorty "defines his position as 'the view that there is nothing to be
said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the
familiar procedures of justification which a given society - ours - uses.'"
Felipe says that his problem is that he arbitrarily priveleges one point of
view, in his case the "western liberal intellectual" one. I don't know
enough to comment.]
Matt: "The main topic I wanted to cover in this little introduction to the
new
movement of my thought is the issue of argumentation, something we know all
too well here. A lot of arguing goes on here, some of it edifying, much of
it belligerent and uninteresting (so goes my opinion)."
Mine too. I made a good resolution a few weeks ago to stay away from
argument for a while and try to find something of value to say, but
inevitably I got sucked back in. But I agree with you. The seeming futility
of the argument in this and other forums is a real issue to me.
Matt: "After a while the arguments became tedious. My point didnt seem to be
coming across, or rather, since the point of argumentation is conversion,
nobody was budging."
Yes. This fits my perception.
Matt: "Rorty believes that the self is a centerless web of beliefs and
desires. This web includes a set of words which they employ to justify their
actions, their beliefs, and their lives ... I shall call these words a
persons final vocabulary."
This seems a useful hypothesis. It links with something I explored in an
early essay of mine, where I pointed out that the pursuit of quality in such
areas as the arts actually leads us apart into more and more circumscribed
specialities. This creates the sad situation that Pirsig refers to often in
Lila, the intense loneliness of a civilization where we have unprecedented
opportunites to explore quality, and all too often no one with whom to share
the outcome of that exploration. Our final vocabularies are similarly
isolating.
The "centerless web of beliefs and desires" I find less attractive. I tend
to agree with Wilber that there is a sense in which the self as agency is
centered. However I also am interested in Susan Blackmore's memetics, and
the self as a constellation of mutually reinforcing memes fits fairly well
with Rorty's view.
Matt: "This means that arguments are of little practical use because a
persons final vocabulary is self-justifying. Its the end of the road and,
for all practical purposes, final. Arguments proceed by common ground, but
if common ground is not had, then logical argumentation is superfluous."
Yes.
Matt: "the rational, logical, undistorted dialectical match is ended
rhetorically. Hence, the primacy of tempting people with your words, rather
than with argumentation."
It sounds like an invitation to quality? You go on to describe the
"Beasley/McWatt battle" [a bit of a misnomer, as I don't recollect replying
to the McWatt critique, though I remember Struan's response]. As you say
"Hellier solidified the incommensurability and, ultimately, self-justifying
nature of these alternate paradigms". That seems a fair comment. I don't
feel the personal attacks helped at all.
Matt: "As a further illustration of the circular, self-justifying nature of
alternative modes of thought, I would illustrate two more positions: the
Platonic dialectical-foundation position and the Rortyan recontextualization
position. These two positions are on the nature of intellectual engagement
and so receive special notice" "The Platonic dialectic is the basis for
logical argumentation. The Rortyan position holds that beliefs are changed
causally, not through rational argumentation. The proper method for
intellectual engagement is recontextualization. The private position of a
person is recontextualized within a narrative of history by which the
private position is shown to have an inadequate understanding of the
patterns of the past and the needs of the present. Positions arent so much
engaged as they are circumvented by shifting the grounds of debate into ones
own private vocabulary."
I found this a very interesting insight. It seems to describe a shift in my
way of arguing towards exposing my more personal reasons for holding a
position. This can feel rather vulnerable, and certainly leaves one more
open to attack, but it also can defuse something of the confrontational
nature of debate. In Rorty's terms I have been contextualizing my arguments.
I do not know if this has been successful - probably it hasn't even been
noticed. But as you say, there is no way for the two forms of argument to
work together. "Both methods are necessarily self-justifying."
Matt: "Rorty ... recommends that we forego argumentation completely, whether
with the heretics or with each other. But ... this does not mean we should
abandon discourse or dialogue."
Good point, but how is this achieved? I see a pattern of debate on this
forum where what appears constructive debate seems to self destruct rapidly
and often ends up abusive and of very low quality (in my opinion - just
expressing this opinion got me into a huge conflict when I first joined the
group). Wilber talks of the techno-warriors on the internet, almost all
male, and I see some justification for his comments. It looks a lot like
intellectual jousting. How do you set up a site to encourage dialogue that
doesn't revert to argument and worse? One has to assume, given its
frequency, that conflict is valued in this group.
Matt: "any forthcoming engagements with this post will almost certainly
elicit the other strands of Rortys thought."
Good. I've enjoyed this so far.
Regards,
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST